Are horse archers literally without weaknesses ?
Yeah, literally
They're shit at defending against direct combat. Good luck protecting a city when horse archers is all you have.
>>976016
Useless in rough terrain, useless against fortifications. But yeah they are basically the apex of open field warfare before effective firearms.
Heres a question, how well would the mongol horde have done against napoleonic armies?
>>976016
You have to train for about a decade to get any good at it.
>>976090
>Useless against fortifications
That must be why the Mongols shat over all the great fortified cities of Asia
>>976121
They didnt do it with horse archers
>>976090
Well horse archers were already boned against foot archers, so I doubt they'd do too good against muskets and cannon
>>976121
>implying they attacked the fortifications with arrows
>implying they didn't shat themselves when faced with stone build castles in Europe
>>976146
Source for foot archers beating horse archers? Ideally without the advantages of fortifications or rough terrain
>>976109
This is actually probably the big one. A combat style that is cheap and can be taught quickly is a massive advantage. Its basically the only reason we switched to guns over bows/crossbows
>>976035
>defending
lmao what is this weakshit? capture a city, raze it, and move on
>>976178
And just to make my point even clearer, you have to train for a decade to be a standard horse archer. The time it takes to get that good on a horse, and that good at archery.
Horse archery at the level practiced by the Mongols took a lifetime to develop. They could loose aimed shots while galloping away from the target. I mean, just, that's /win-mode/ for immediately pre-modern warfare.
They're overrated. For a person to fire from horseback they never LITERALLY flat ground. Otherwise they need someone else to guide the horse while they fire.
Each person riding a horse would need 3-4 so switch out to every couple of hours after they tire theirs out.
They are actually really inefficient to use in mass. But, they're semi-professionalized, with only massed bows being able to provide rebukes. Or crossbows. Good god, crossbows would slaughter them if anyone would have managed the discipline to bunker them behind a shieldwall crouched.
>>976016
BUILD WALL is one such weakness.
>>976857
OR BEHIND A GREAT WALL.
No seriously, why didn't China just mass crossbow archers on top of ther fortifications. I mean, THEY HAD THE CROSSBOW.
>>976932
Horsefuckers had great issue with the walled cities of China. What they ended up doing was spreading disease in the city's and blowing them up with fireworks.
So better question was "Why weren't chinese cities better fortified"
Constantinople had water supply for eight years or more of use and was supposed to support a garrison of 150,000 with food for three years at normal levels of rationing. The turks were only managed to take the city when its garrison was a tenth of what it was supposed to be, and only with grand bombards to tear down the walls, and only them because the greeks couldn't afford to pay their own engineers.
>>976035
>2015
>Still an agriculturalist
How passe
>>976941
Actually, the Turkish cannons were so slow the Romans were able to repair any damage done to the walls. The Ottomans were only able to get in because they bribed a guard at one of the gates, promising that not only would they pay him, they'd let him and his family go free.
I don't know if they actually delivered.
>>976168
My Medieval 2 Total War campaign playing as Britain.
>>976967
I thought that Mongolians, before Genghis's unification, had to regularly interact and trade with agrarians for food and shit
ITT: not a single source or paper, people pulling shit out of their asses.
I'm trying to find the thesis that discussed whether the mongols could have held all the castles in Europe (the conclusion was probably not) but you all can go fuck yourselves.
>>976016
Horse archers are vulnerable to, surprise surprise, other archers.
Unlike foot mounted archers who have the advantage of a stable firing position and cover, horse archers are quite exposed and pretty lightly armored. They rely on not getting hit to not die.
This is especially evident when heavy fortifications like castles come into play. The defending archers would have a huge advantage over horse archers, who had absolutely no advantages whatsoever.
There's a reason the Mongols used Chinese siege engines to siege castles instead of horse archers.
I think in a battle of longbowmen versus horse archers, assuming all else is equal, the longbowmen would have won. Pavises would have been common and incredibly effective against the Mongol hordes.
didn't horse niggers need heavy lancers to take pressure of from the enemy cavalry?
>>976168
For reals historically would have been the Gupta Empire vs the Kushans, Scythians and Hephathlite Empire.
>>976016
No, otherwise we'd be still using them in combat.
